Late-night TV host Stephen Colbert did a joke about Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in a recent monologue, and now FCC Chairman Ajit Pai says the agency will consider “the appropriate remedy” if the joke is found to violate FCC standards.

Are you exhausted from the rapid pace of technological change in communications? Clearly you don’t work at the FCC, which is still in 1972.

That was the year comedian George Carlin recorded his “Class Clown” album with its legendary monologue on the “Seven Dirty Words.” They could not be spoken, Carlin said, because they would “infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war.”

One afternoon in 1973, WBAI-FM radio in New York broadcast a recording of Carlin’s “Filthy Words” routine, a variation of his “Seven Dirty Words” material, and a listener’s complaint to the FCC led to the agency warning the station’s owner, Pacifica Foundation, that it could face future sanctions if there were any more complaints.

Pacifica appealed that ruling, and the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1978, the justices ruled 5-4 that Carlin’s routine was “indecent but not obscene.” Creating a new legal standard, the court said the FCC could decide what’s “indecent” and regulate offensive content on broadcasts between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. to protect children from accidentally being exposed to indecent material.

And here we are. Although Colbert’s monologue was broadcast later than 10 p.m., the FCC says it still has to investigate when viewers complain. The complaint forms are on the agency’s website along with the government’s “Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts Guide.” You can even print a copy, if you’re retro enough to still use paper for reading.

“For content to be obscene,” the guide says, “it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court.” Don’t call my advertisers, “prong” is not one of the seven words.

The Supreme Court’s first prong says obscene material “must appeal to an average person’s prurient interest,” but this prong is difficult to measure. Standardized tests have so far been unsuccessful, because every time somebody hands out the number 2 pencils, the FCC says number 2 is one of the seven words.

The second prong of the test for obscenity says the content must “depict or describe sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.” Obviously this prong depends on the age of the audience. Your Aunt Tempest the burlesque dancer has a higher threshold for offense than your niece Snowflake the college student, who calls the EPA whenever CBS weathercaster Jackie Johnson suddenly turns sideways and blocks her view of the Rocky Mountains.

The third prong asks if the material, “taken as a whole,” lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” That sounds like it covers just about everything, but then, if you covered everything, no men would ever look twice at the Fox News anchors.

There’s your three-prong test for obscenity. Now, what is indecency?

The FCC says indecency is content that “portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity.”

I know you have one burning question. You want to know if we can get that commercial for lubricated catheters off the news channels. Sorry, the FCC doesn’t regulate indecency on cable TV, only broadcast.

The third category of speech patrolled by regulators is “profane content,” defined as “grossly offensive” language that is considered a “public nuisance.”

But if it’s funny, and you laugh, is it a public nuisance or a public service?

Groucho Marx once wrote that comedians aren’t fully appreciated. He said, “If not for the brief respite we give the world with our foolishness, the world would see mass suicide in numbers that compare favorably with the death rate of the lemmings.”

So was Colbert’s joke funny, or just an angry rant? Maybe you haven’t heard it, and I can’t write it here, but think of Monica Lewinsky in a production of “Annie Get Your Gun” and you’ll be generally on the right track.

It can only be funny if you agree with the premise of the joke, which is the belief that President Trump is working for the interests of Russian President Vladimir Putin. If you don’t believe that, you’re more likely to find the joke “grossly offensive.”